This thesis aims to analyse the sport policy process in the Republic of Korea
through an examination of the cases of elite sport and sport for all. This study
assesses the utility of a number of theoretical frameworks all of which were created
either in the North America or Europe. The following macro-level theories are
discussed and assessed: Marxism, Elitism and Pluralism. At the meso-level Policy
Community (Marsh and Rhodes 1992), Multiple Streams Framework (Kingdon,
1995) and Advocacy Coalition Framework (Sabatier and Jenkin-Smith, 1999) were
investigated and their utility in the Korean context was evaluated.
Two case studies, elite sport and sport for all, were chosen and qualitative research
methods were used in order to gather empirical data. A series of forty three semistructured
interviews were undertaken. The first round of interview was conducted
between 22nd June 2007 and 11th July 2007 followed by more extensive second
round of interviews from 29th November 2007 to 15th June 2008 in Korea. The
interviewees included academics, journalists, elite athletes, senior officers in the
government and sub-national government, senior officers in national government
organisations such as KSC, NACOSA, SOSFO, senior officials in KISS, NGBs, the
business sector, the military sector and voluntary organisations such as YMCA.
Interview data was supported by extensive analysis of documents including
government reports, annual Sport White Papers, newspapers and magazine articles.
One of the central findings is that decision-making in relation to high performance
(elite) sport policy is dominated by members of the political, business and military
elite. High performance sport decision-making is tightly controlled by the
government which has been consistently the core actor in Korea’s elite sport policy
process with there being little evidence of civil society involvement. As regard
Sport For All, different levels of government and also non-government
organisations were involved in promoting Sport For All. However of particular note
is the lack of contact and cooperation between the government and other nongovernment
organisations, for example, YMCA in terms of sharing experiences of
promoting sport. Despite the involvement of different levels of government and of non-government organisations policy direction and momentum was largely set by
the elite level of central government.
The analysis reveals that elitism is the most appropriate framework to apply in
Korean sport policy at the macro-level. As for the meso-level, none of the three
frameworks were considered to be particularly useful although Policy Community
appeared to be appropriate in the early stage of the research.

Description:

A Doctoral Thesis. Submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the award of Doctor of Philosophy of Loughborough University.